It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hi daz,

First thank you for the exchange.


Sure don't have it down pact, but through the experiences in life realize, yes we are all a part of the experience of life unfolding of itself. Yes, this goes on in its own ways. Moments are real and add to the story and what manifests. Creates changes around me and with in me.

This confirms there is no seperation, unless thought to be seperated. Even this is entwined with in what may unfold with in the Wholeness of it all.

.

Always a pleasure to speak with you MG

Just thought I would refer to what you said in relation to the other conversation going on here regarding the moon disappearing when you no longer perceive it .

Your thoughts here about life unfolding of itself would mean that there is something inherent within the reality of what unfolds that exists primarily unto itself . What I mean is, the rose seed grows unto itself beneath the soil, beneath the radar of another perceiving it until it breaks through the surface of the soil ..

You go to work and come home and the rose has suddenly bloomed, it wasn't in full flower when you left, so how can there be the creation of the flower in full bloom when there was no one creating that unfolding change in the first place ..

This illustrates that there is individual experience that is independent in such a way where existence and experience continues to be in their own right without the requirement of being perceived into being .


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

3 strikes and your out


x daz x

*steals 3rd base*

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

From a scenario where all things are the same, all things from this perspective are god creators .

From a conscious aware individual perspective all life exists in the form that it exists in .

We have to therefore see the moon in the same light as we do a family member for example .

When each family member is not perceiving one another then all ceases to be and yet all can self verify still existing ..

It makes no sense does it to say the moon disappears and not your partner ... for they are both individual self conscious beings in their own right while not being separate from the wholeness of what we are .


x daz x

I agree, but most people do not perceive things as being the same, and equal to themselves, thus as a whole.

There is always the possiblity that there is a human or an animal or an insect and maybe even a plant that is observing/is conscious of the moon/family member at all times.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound, if you are not there to hear it?

We know that the moon/family member exists and is not a dream or an illusion because we/our selfs observe and experience both of them, in the infinite eternal right here and right now with our individual self/2 eyes and that is all that matters.

Most people perceive things through their eyes of their fear based mental and emotional conditioning, including wanting to feel good, pleasure and comfort.

I do not know, light itself may be the consciousness of the infinite eternal right here and right now, which allows it to create and be conscious of everything both light and darkness. This could be the reason why some religous and spiritual people relate light to god/source or whatever they call it.

The infinite eternal right here and right now could have created the big bang to create light and energy, which in turn creates observable physical matter.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

*steals 3rd base*

x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I agree, but most people do not perceive things as being the same, and equal to themselves, thus as a whole.

Yes, and this is why it is necessary to get the foundation straight to begin with otherwise premises are built upon an unsound footing. Some have a foundation where they are the only real conscious creator and perceiver and everything comes and goes because of this .

It's a mad premise and I have spoken to peeps that present this foundation but it never works and never ends well

Originally Posted by MikeS80

is always the possiblity that there is a human or an animal or an insect and maybe even a plant that is observing/is conscious of the moon/family member at all times.

Theoretically this is true, there could always be some organism that is present even when the personal self feels that they are alone . This organism (using the premise of the perceiver creating one's form) would therefore hold your form of existence simply by being present perceiving . In a way this is a water tight premise because one couldn't prove either way that there is something present of this world or not creating your form .

Again we can delve back into how appearances appear and the requirement for a physical birth for one to make a physical appearance, it's not as if appearances in this way can appear and disappear because we need the actual birthing experience in the first instance . This would suggest the birthing process isn't actual, all it is is a smoke screen because it's the dad or someone else simply creating the existence of the baby by perceiving into reality ..

I could say that you are really a martian disguised as a human and have total memory loss and you could not prove me wrong . This is what can happen when we create premises that are water tight, but we need the foundation to be true to begin with .

Originally Posted by MikeS80

a tree falling in the woods make a sound, if you are not there to hear it?

We know that the moon/family member exists and is not a dream or an illusion because we/our selfs observe and experience both of them, in the infinite eternal right here and right now with our individual self/2 eyes and that is all that matters.

Most people perceive things through their eyes of their fear based mental and emotional conditioning, including wanting to feel good, pleasure and comfort.

I do not know, light itself may be the consciousness of the infinite eternal right here and right now, which allows it to create and be conscious of everything both light and darkness. This could be the reason why some religous and spiritual people relate light to god/source or whatever they call it.

The infinite eternal right here and right now could have created the big bang to create light and energy, which in turn creates observable physical matter.

There are I am sure many theories that exist to explain all these aspects .. I like to see all these aspects integrated and it seems to make sense to do that because we cannot separate one aspect from the other when experienced in a certain way and in a certain environment .


x daz x

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Always a pleasure to speak with you MG

Just thought I would refer to what you said in relation to the other conversation going on here regarding the moon disappearing when you no longer perceive it .

Your thoughts here about life unfolding of itself would mean that there is something inherent within the reality of what unfolds that exists primarily unto itself . What I mean is, the rose seed grows unto itself beneath the soil, beneath the radar of another perceiving it until it breaks through the surface of the soil ..

You go to work and come home and the rose has suddenly bloomed, it wasn't in full flower when you left, so how can there be the creation of the flower in full bloom when there was no one creating that unfolding change in the first place ..

This illustrates that there is individual experience that is independent in such a way where existence and experience continues to be in their own right without the requirement of being perceived into being .


x daz x

Greetings GL,

It has been presented in this thread that it doesn't matter whether someone perceives I exist or not, I exist none the less. Or words to that effect.

It comes off to me this conversation is involving two things basically. That which is Directly Experienced and that which is Thought/conceptual to be possible or be. What enters into ones own consciousness and what is within consciousness as a whole.

May observe the moon, but never been on the moon. So go by what information is given about the moon. Being on the moon is still just an idea as to what it is like, for me. The moon exist none the less.

So, don't know in regards to expericing being on the moon. Can still observe its reflection in the sky here. If not observing from the perspective here on Earth, would presume the moon would be experienced in a totally different way.

Yes, life and the many lifeforms will do what each are created to do regardless of what I may think about. It makes life interesting. A little mystery breaks up the boredom.

I also think there may two different things being discussed. The existance of life forms, which gives diversities/individualizations and the wholeness/inclusions of it all. Which can bring about a sense of inclusion.

What is experienced by the individual creates what may be perceived. Was what is observed there before it was observed? Seems some of the philosophical/conceptual questions presented. The question for me is; What is being experienced and what is this bringing into my life/experience?

Philosophical/conceptual is more mental and/or pointers. Which have thier place. The other creates a knowing that goes beyond just thinking about it, IMO.

Don't get me wrong. Do enjoy exploring the possibilities, at times. Enjoy sharing and viewing different insights and perspectives. What is experienced in whatever way brings it home, atleast for me.

Also the imagination can open the mind to explore beyond what may be held at present and observed. It makes life interesting and has its place as well.

[quote=God-Like]To be honest I don't follow the inns and outs of these types of experiments so I don't understand them, I am more of a red belt in these fields .

Well then, it is worth a look in my opinion. The crux of it is that in the experiment, (which is now up to 2000 atom molecules, my previous info was from 2012), is that matter when not being observed, does not seem to be material at all. In fact it does not appear to exist in any traditional sense of that word. Instead what exists is a mathematical probability function (in the form of Schrödinger's wave function) of where the matter might be observed to be if an observation were to be made. In other words, the matter only ‘exists’, as a thing, when we are looking. Actually, we don’t even need to be looking at that moment. We can design an experiment in which we could later... say...IDK...a billion years later… go back and look at the data and determine which slit the ‘molecule’ passed through, (as a single thing would do, as opposed to how a wave would go through both) and we find that the matter seems to have known that the possibility of being observed existed way back then, and so behaved accordingly, as an existing observable thing would do. But run the experiment in a way in which one can never know which slit the molecule (or perhaps one day moon) would have gone through, and it will once again behave as a mathematical wave of probabilities of what might become but not yet is, it will instead go through both.

I am trying to establish a foundation of what we are here that reflects in all things .

There is self, which creates that I AM thought that it perceives to be what it is here, self’s perception of ‘self’, and self creates all the myriad things which it perceives as ‘not self’, the molecule, the moon, the tree, the you.

You said 'I am, and the moon, are indeed the same substance, but both are created by and from the substance of that which is creating and perceiving them'---So using your premise why for instance doesn't the moon or the sun when not perceiving you in their own way reflect in you no longer being in the form of a human being?I t works both ways doesn't it

.

I don’t know that the sun and moon are perceiving me at all. All things are created within my consciousness, I create them and perceive them there. Like the molecule in the experiment, I wish to observe them, and hence they are created in my consciousness, and there is where they exist, and where I perceive them. But I don’t know that because I have created them from and within my consciousness, that they themselves have conscious awareness. IDK that it does work both ways. Not everything I create in my mind, so to speak, must have a mind of its own to look back and perceive me.

When you are alone sitting on your sofa you would no longer exist as human form by your premise ..
When a family member isn't perceiving you then you no longer exist within human form ...
How is it that you can still perceive the laptop when you have no eyes to see .
How can you be aware of the stars at night when there is no perceiver perceiving you into being?

I think perhaps the confusion here arises from the paradigm that there is such a thing as in independent objective reality, which the perceivers are perceiving. Another paradigm rejects that assumption, and there is even some experimental evidence that objective reality does not exist. Instead, each perceiver is perceiving the reality they are creating within their own consciousness. There are the individually created realities, which only appear to be an independent objective reality because they seem to match up so well.

Think of Neo and Morpheus in the matrix. It appears to them that they are together in the matrix, yet in reality they were only being fed a common data stream and using it to create a similar reality experience within their minds. If we were sufficiently skilled, perhaps we could tap into and alter one of their reality streams a bit, and now Neo sees Morpheous but Morpheous does not see Neo. Neo however, does not disappear in his own perception, only in that of Morpheous’s. The two realities now diverge.

I see the stars at night, and the moon, and my laptop, and me, because self (whatever that may be), is perceiving all of them into being. In my reality, I perceive everything and everyone into being, but only in my own reality. You may have your own reality, if you really exist, but I never know either for sure. Just like self creates the I am perspective and says, “this is self”, it could create a ‘you are’ perspective and say “that is not self”, yet both are being created by and defined by and then perceived by, the self.

We are all cut from the same cloth so to speak but in a physical world environment we are not creators of moons and suns or other people through the art of perceiving . Something has to be there for it to exist . There is no individual creator god here creating the appearances of something that isn't there when you don't perceive it .

I have never and will never experience the physical world environment directly (assuming it exists as such, independently, at all). Even from the basic materialists assumptions, we experience a virtual reality representation that which we create in our brains (or minds?) from the information coming in digitally from the sensory nerves. We assume those senses are sensing something physical, something out there. But just as self creates and perceives the I am, perhaps it creates and perceives the information from the senses. Perhaps the senses are part of the virtual “I” creation that the self uses to experience its own self created reality, perceiving those created sensory signals as part of the I am perspective, sensing another part of its own created reality as it perceives of as not self.

What does it mean to say that something has to be there for it to exist? If you hallucinate something within your own mind, how do you know whether it exists or not elsewhere? Everything in your mind can be seen as a hallucination, only when there is perceived sensory input, we say it exists out there as well. Yet can’t that sensory input be part of the hallucination as well?.

If the act of observing the molecule causes it to appear as a molecule, when only a moment ago it was just a probability function of where it might appear as a molecule, then where did it ‘exist’ a moment ago. And along those same lines, where exactly is it ‘existing’ in the now, how did it suddenly come into that existence, and how do we know where it was before then. You are perceiving that molecule in your mind’s eye, but given its odd behavior, is it right to assume it exists anywhere else? Is it possible, that it really only exists as a thing, here and now, in the mind of the observer, and only for so long as they observe it (whether they observe it to ‘be’ in the past, present, or future).

When there was the birthing of the physical universe there was no one here perceiving the world into being

.

When exactly was the physical universe birthed? The implications of general relativity tell us that time does not work as we thought, that spacetime is relative to the inertial frame of each observer. We all have our own spacetime and one observer’s present can actually be another past. One theoretical implication of this, used to explain how this could be, is the block universe concept (which btw is very similar to the Akashic records concept). Here past, present, and future all simply exist, whatever that word means, and are all equally real in whatever here and now spacetime you are perceiving from. The past is past for you because you perceive it to be so from your reference frame ‘in’ that block universe. Because it ‘seems’ you cannot go in that direction, but can go in the other, and it ‘seems’ you can ‘know’ in that past direction, but cannot in that future direction. Here the big bang did not bang long ago, it simply exists, you only perceive it to be in the past from the reference frame of the point in spacetime you are creating as your here and now. You perceive the big bang into existence in your here and now reality, and assign it to your ‘past’, when you seek to perceive a ‘past’ that explains your present here and now. You create a ‘past’ for your here and now, a backstory, because you seek that continuity that will give the ‘experience of being real’ to the here and now present moment you are creating.

BTW: a bit of a tangent here, but that past you are creating, IMO, is only one of many pasts you could be creating in your perception. It is the most probable one based on your perception of your here and now. Change that perception of here and now, and you may find a different past more probable, and perceive that one instead. Yet you will not know you have done this as only the currently created and perceived past that you have in your perception, here and now, is the past that now exists in your here and now perception. Just like the present knowledge of which slit the molecule must have gone through can seemingly change that molecule's apparent past behavior (its very nature of existence) as you perceive it, here and now. It seems the present is influencing the past, but only because that past is actually being created and perceived in the ever present, here and now. So of course the present can change the past. That ‘past’ is being created and eternally recreated in the eternal ‘here and now’.

When a car hits an unconscious deaf person from behind the person didn't perceive the car or the person driving the car ..Things effect us from a far, I for one can feel the energy from a full moon without perceiving it ...How can a peep feel the influence of something that doesn't exist?

If I can create a moon and perceive it, can I not create a perception of energy instead? The deaf person feels the hit, but does that mean the car must have existed prior to that experience? Perhaps the deaf person finds the car and person is the most probable past to explain the circumstances of the perception of being hit in the present moment here and now.

You say you feel the pull of gravity from the energy of the moon. But I say I have plugged my computer into the socket in the back of your neck and I am feeding your brain the information to make it seem like you are feeling that moon. If you look to see that moon, then I shall feed you the information to create it in a way in which it has always been there.

Do we feel effects from afar? Even the hard core materialist must admit that what we feel is what the brain creates within itself. In there is the only “place” we can feel anything. How far is it from one point to another in the mind.? Peeps will object to the notion of ‘spooky action at a distance’ because it seems some sort of signal must be traveling faster than the speed of light, perhaps even infinitely fast. But velocity is distance divided by time, what if there really is no distance to be traveled.

There are about a million holes in this premise that relates to perceiving things into being from this perspective .

I don’t know about a million holes, but I may concede that in perception at least, there is a big hole in your head. In that hole there is a brain, in which everything that you will ever perceive as existing, that brain is creating within itself and perceiving it there. Now, as to what is creating and perceiving that brain along with its brainy creation, whether that brain itself has an independent existence, that is a deeper and more nebulous topic.

Many things appear to be common sense and obvious to many people. When all those people say, “Of course it must be so, it’s common sense.”, we often feel justified in our beliefs. But we must be careful not to assume a statement is true just because it resounds around in a room where all commonly believe and say the same things. We may all rely on our senses to create a common experience of reality, but when we look beyond those senses, whether aided by technology, or simply using the mind's eye, we find that what those senses were telling us is not quite the way it is. The further we go the more we realize that what those senses were telling us, we were using to create a virtual reality representation of what is, creating and existing entirely within that mind, only good enough for our minds present needs, not the actual reality of what is. Yet wanting to know what reality really is, what does really exist, we go deeper and find that perhaps there is no one reality, or if there is one, it is forever a mystery to the mind, we only perceive a reality based on those myriad forms that we are creating within the mind.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Many things appear to be common sense and obvious to many people. When all those people say, “Of course it must be so, it’s common sense.”, we often feel justified in our beliefs. But we must be careful not to assume a statement is true just because it resounds around in a room where all commonly believe and say the same things. We may all rely on our senses to create a common experience of reality, but when we look beyond those senses, whether aided by technology, or simply using the mind's eye, we find that what those senses were telling us is not quite the way it is. The further we go the more we realize that what those senses were telling us, we were using to create a virtual reality representation of what is, creating and existing entirely within that mind, only good enough for our minds present needs, not the actual reality of what is. Yet wanting to know what reality really is, what does really exist, we go deeper and find that perhaps there is no one reality, or if there is one, it is forever a mystery to the mind, we only perceive a reality based on those myriad forms that we are creating within the mind.

this and more of your post is all very true, the only question is how lonely are you willing to be just to see it for yourself?

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

this and more of your post is all very true, the only question is how lonely are you willing to be just to see it for yourself?

IDK, perhaps a resolve to that accept that loneliness is a prerequisite to looking in the first place.....perhaps it need not be.

Perhaps it is only a loneliness that ones bears along the path back to finding out that all separateness is illusion, and in the end all is indeed one. All equal expressions of an underlying mystery that is beyond direct experience as anything but a mystery. I don't really know. Fortunately, to hold a view of reality other than the one the brain and senses are creating, does require some effort to do. If one desires they can relax back into the experience of what appears to be, as what is, reality, and just go for a walk, or maybe a burger and fries. Anyway, without knowing what if anything is ultimately reality, a burger and fries has as much right to reality as does anything else my mind can conjure up, and they taste a lot better.

[FallingLeaves]

putting a different film in the camera is relatively easy... trying to figure out how the camera works is much harder...